Fast and Near-Optimum Schedule Optimization for Large-Scale Projects
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Real-life construction projects are large in size and are challenged by many constraints, including strict deadlines and resource limits. In this paper, constraint programming (CP) is used as an advanced mathematical technique that suits schedule optimization problems. A practical CP optimization model has been developed to resolve both deadline and resource constraints simultaneously in large-scale projects. The proposed CP model is much faster than metaheuristic techniques and provides a set of feasible project durations that do not violate resource limits. The paper compares the CP results with several case studies from the literature to prove the practicality and usefulness of the CP approach to both researchers and practitioners. The CP model of this paper could provide solutions within 6.5% deviation from optimum schedules for a large project of 2,000 activities within minutes of processing time. This paper thus contributes to introducing a superior optimization model that is suitable for large-size projects and helps to render schedule optimization a mainstream cost-saving function within commercial scheduling systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it